The ABC allows comments on some of our articles, as a space for you to contribute your thoughts about news events and participate in civil conversations about topical issues.

All comments are moderated and we make no guarantees that your contribution will be published.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

10 Dec 2016 3:02:47am

Text

PreviousMessage

Let’s cut out some of the waffle and translate this into something clearer.

The author alleges that, in theory, liberalism means that ‘there may legitimately be as many cultures as there are individuals’. So far so good—and three cheers for that.

But, he continues, ‘in reality, mere liberalism encourages a clumping into a restricted number of group-identities and so gives us precisely multiculturalism of the most anarchic kind’. Really? How? Where? Why? By 'anarchy' does he mean people associating themselves with any grouping they like, to any extent they like?

And, therefore, he asserts (this verb might be a bit strong, I had to dig through a lot of wooliness) it’s better to have even more clumping, to have an even more restricted number of group identities: religion ‘of the type espoused by the great world faiths needs to be recognised by governments….’

As far as the author is saying something concrete, it seems to be that Moslem leaders (and perhaps some representatives from other non-specified faiths) should join the Church of England in the House of Lords. He doesn’t specify where to draw the line, but I guess that Jehovah’s Witnesses, Sufis and Bokononists might not get a seat.

In short, respecting each individual’s culture is anarchy, but ‘group rights’ leads to trust and community and an ‘organicist variety’of multiculturalism. (Whatever that is, may God preserve me from it.)

I love this article. It reminds me again that liberalism is a revolutionary, life-affirming philosophy. It’s slowly defeating the fascists, thugs and totalitarians; gradually defeating those who would enforce their superstitions and falsehoods on others. It’s not going to be beaten back by the forces of woolly theology.